Seems reckless even for Trump.
What’s the point in taking on more judgements?
1 Like
-
He believes he deserves special treatment.
-
He knows his minions will scream “free speech!” displaying their willful ignorance of the 1st amendment when judgements come down.
I don’t think Trump is being tried for denying the allegations, but for defaming Carroll. He called her ugly, not my type, etc. Said he never met her, that sort of thing. And she sued him for that, the trial found that Trump raped her and defamed her and she won money from him.
The very next day he had a town hall on CNN and said the same damn things about her. This suit is for the things he said after the trial had ended, not for what was said when he was President. And the reason he keeps doing it is that he is a spoiled teenager stuck in an old guys body and refuses to be told what he can or cannot say. He is literally appealing multiple decisions (gag orders) in the NY financial fraud case because he was told he cannot insult a Court staffer. Not the Judge, not the Prosecutor, a Paralegal who supports the Judge. I have no idea why it is so important for him to insult this woman that he is trying to take this all the way to the SCOTUS. The trial is over, let it go for God’s sake.
8 Likes
It’s a profound shame to me that the political initiatives I want to see enacted have to be channeled through this guy.
Your assessment captured him better than I could have. That’s my biggest problem with him. Yet to achieve the sorts of political changes I want, he seems to be the only option.
1 Like
I can only imagine the frustration.
You have principled, consistent stances and political views, that have always been staples of the republican party, but they just don’t light the fire under the base enough to win.
Along comes trump - a NY Democrat - and suddenly he’s the king of the party…to the point of driving out people who have long fought for those bedrock conservative principles.
It’s incredible. It really is.
3 Likes
Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is what Trump does. It’s the result of decades of not being held accountable for his actions. Now that he’s facing some actual accountability, he doesn’t know how to handle it - so he’s lashing out at others.
2 Likes
Wow, what a shock! The same group of people who don’t understand or respect the second amendment are equally ignorant and disdainful of the first…
2 Likes
Another abjectly stupid post from you.
2 Likes
Defamation is not constitutionally protected speech.
3 Likes
Lol.
You’re a piece of work.
4 Likes
Calling someone ugly is defamation?
2 Likes
Man, you guys are predictable.
2 Likes
Calling someone ugly is not defamation. But of course given the state of New Yorks renound impartiality in dealing with Donald Trump, we must give all weight and due consideration to what New York judges and juries say about him…
We need only consider the judge and famed Florida real estate expert who appraised Mar-A- Lago at 18 million dollars without even leaving his bench to realize the extra special qualifications New Yorkers have to make judgements on Donald Trump.
Seriously though, if Trump had accused this person of a crime that she didn’t commit in an attempt to harm her business or reputation, for (and I’m giving a totally random example here) say insurrection, I mean a crime for which she was never arrested or even charged- and the woman was actually punished as a result of that accusation, well THAT might be defamation and I would agree, that should warrant a penalty upon the person or persons who spread such malicious lies.
Oh wait a minute… I forgot. Accusing someone of insurrection who was never charged or arrested or convicted of the serious crime of insurrection, in an attempt to harm their business or reputation and actually punishing someone based on the mere accusation is NOT actually defamation, that’s just Libs being Libs.
My bad…Carry on with your non defamation of Donald Trump.
4 Likes
Now I know the First Amendment is way too hard for the average Lib to understand but since you’re obviously not average, I’ve taken the liberty of pasting it here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Perhaps you can shed some extra light on the part that says " OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and, if it’s not to difficult, could you context it with calling someone ugly?
Thanks in advance for your not average insight.
1 Like
Oh he’s getting special treatment just not the kind he hoped for.
1 Like
No. Calling them a liar can be, though.
1 Like
Trump isn’t being sued because he called her “ugly.”
1 Like
Yep - these folks forget that “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of using said speech in an inappropriate manner. I could walk into a courtroom right now and commit perjury and then try to argue “free speech” if caught. Claiming “free speech,” however, is not going to relieve me of the possibility of the judge handing down a sentence to me for committing said perjury.
2 Likes
How?
…
trump once again has been found liable for defamation. trial is for the damages.
you cannot defame a person, which is what trump did to her once again.
the guy just cant leave well enough alone, so once again (and again and again) he is in court being held accountable for his actions.
Allan
1 Like
